Skip to main content

About your Search

20130121
20130129
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
yield five minutes to senator schumer. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you. first i want to thank the chair of the appropriations committee for the wonderful job she has done. we've worked as a team together, and she's been great. this is her first major bill, i guess, she's handling as chair of appropriations, and i think it bodes well for the future of, if you will, the strengthening of that committee on into the year as we do appropriations bills. i want to thank my colleague from alabama, my gym mate, senator shelby, for his help and support. and i think he and senator mikulski will be a great team as chair and ranking on appropriations. i want to thank mary landrieu and the other subcommittee chairs. they did an amazing job for us, and i thank them. mary's assistance, advice, given what she went through several years ago in louisiana with katrina, was invaluable to those of us in new york and new jersey. and finally, my colleagues, i see senator gillibrand is here. senator blumenthal is in the chair. in addition, senators murphy, senator mene
was honored to work with that group, along with senator pryor and senator schumer, with senator barrasso, senator alexander and our former colleague, senator kyl, and we sat for hours debating. it was very educational for me, mr. president, because i would listen to the concerns of my republican colleagues, and it was a lot different than what i heard in the democratic caucus, and i think we both learned a lot from each other but there was general agreement that there was a real problem in the operations of the united states senate, and that we owed an obligation to take a look at our rules and see whether we couldn't modify the rules so that we can do the type of deliberation, debate and voting that's expected of the united states senate. one of the problems that became very apparent to all of us is that individual senators are able to block the consideration of amendments and bills on the floor of the senate indefinitely, and that's wrong. my colleague from arizona pointed out that you could be in your home state and offer an objection, a bill could be brought to a standstill. that's n
and so forth. i'm sure senator schumer can be to that. there's room within the tax cut for us to reduce the deficit and still protect the middle class and promote growth. [inaudible] >> we believe strongly that this is the way. senator schumer said clearly the civic tree for the president. there's no one of the brinksmanship and that's way more than one occasion to my remarks it's how we feel. [inaudible] >> anything we do will be based on a budget. we do think separate and apart from now, but the framework for moving forward is the budget senator murray has indicated she will move forward with. >> can you be more specific -- [inaudible] >> senator durbin correctly said it's always been republican mantra. close the loopholes and use this mayonnaise. rethink some of those should be used for revenues. so did simpson/bowles. as the discussions have been about. we haven't changed our position and i hope they have a change to various. that will be up to the budget committee and the finance committee will discuss that. i [inaudible] >> say that again. senator murray, we talked about that on t
here in the senate. senator schumer, senator gillibrand, senator menendez, senator lautenberg; of course in maryland, you don't hear much about maryland, but one or two small counties were terribly affected in maryland. and senator cardin, senator mikulski have been just day in and day out working with me and with many, of course, trying to fashion a robust and smart response to the disaster on the east coast. we want it to be smart, mr. president, because the taxpayers don't want to waste money on things that don't work. and, of course, the survivors want it to be smart because they really need us to do our best work now. we can't be late and sloppy and bureaucratic. they've got churches to be built and faith-based organizations to get back up and running. their schools, libraries, most importantly their homes and their businesses. so this is a very important work and it's been difficult, because there are many different philosophies about how to tackle this. and i'm made my positions fairly clear on certain things like offsets, et cetera, et cetera. but today i really wanted
i've been honored to join chuck schumer of new york and bob menendez of new jersey. on the republican side, john mccain of arizona, lindsey graham of south carolina, marco rubio of florida. pretty interesting group; right? pretty interesting political spectrum represented by these six senators. for the last few months we've been sitting down and working out a statement of principles about immigration reform. and today we unveiled those principles. we have a lot of work to do. we still have to write the law and we still have to bring it to the senate to be debated and to be passed. i don't assume for a minute that we're going to have every senator supporting it on both sides of the aisle. that would be too much to consider or to ask. but i know from listening to the speeches that were given by senator sessions of alabama, senator vitter of louisiana, they have many questions that they want to ask about how we approach immigration reform. so let me try, if i can, to speak to some of the basics that are included in our effort. first, when i listened to the senator from
people from the big city areas of come to montana as well. one of them is senator schumer of new york who got out there. he was used to the 55 miles per hour speed limit until he tried to go across montana and realize it would take eight days by the time he got done. >> scary thought. >> schumer in montana? >> eight days. >> but should there be a proactive effort of some kind? there are lots of different groups at the grassroots level trying to come together on this. kennedy at the federal level an attempt to marry the cultures on this issue, if not marry them to find common ground where they can work this out and talk to each other anyway that we don't now in the heat of the moment? >> if you were back chief of staff of the white house, would you say to the president, you should go to colorado or to wyoming and bring in the governors of those states and other interested parties? >> well, yes, but what i would do, there is a place and a role, and i could tell you the truth, the farther you get from washington to more civil the conversation is going to get, from a political standpoint. it
to have a senate budget has too often been described as just a minor procedural matter. senator schumer, who explained recently, said, well, the democrats did have a budget because there was a budget that came out of the sequester agreement in mid-2011. now, never mind that the senate hadn't had a budget that spring or the spring before that or that the parliamentarians said that the sequester deal wasn't a budget. somehow coming up with one number was supposedly good enough to be a budget. that's like if you sat around your kitchen table and had a discussion about how you're going to spend the money, here's how the discussion would go. "okay, i think we ought to spend x amount of money. that's the meeting. we've just decided that's what we're going to do." and that's somehow the budget? and particularly when x amount of money didn't relate at all to the amount of money coming into your family. nobody believes that would make sense. we'll see whether senator schumer's words this weekend will produce a budget. the house has acted. the president says he wants the debt ceiling increase. ho
. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: i was pleased to hear a few days ago senator schumer said that we'd have a budget in the senate. it's been now 1,370 about, give or take a few days, since we've had a budget in the senate, even though plain statutory law requires the senate to have a budget. and now senator murray has followed up yesterday with a quote saying that the senate will -- today, i believe, said we'll again return to regular order and move a budget resolution through the committee and to the senate floor. so the budget committee has not been meeting, has not been doing its duty. as the ranking republican on the budget committee, i've been aghast, really, at the process and have talked about it now for over a thousand days. and so this will be a good step. my colleagues would like to suggest somehow that, well, they decided to do this out of the goodness of their heart and this is the right thing, and on their own they've just decided. but i think the american people have had a bellyful of this. the united states house has repeatedly passed budgets. the senate
to ask a question, somewhat what mr. schumer was asking about. just to get your thoughts of what we might do as members of congress and how we might move forward with the nations of their spring so that maybe that is the way we can prevent these kinds of things are happening in the future. >> it's an excellent question, congressman, and it deserves a very thoughtful and, longer than the time i have but let me make three quick points. first, we cannot retreat from, give up on, turn our backs on a new arab spring revolutionary countries and new regimes. they are very new. most of them have leaders that have never run anything. they have come from backgrounds where they are suspicion of security because security was -- it to them in jail. had harassed them and their families. so we have to do some work and that work requires that we stay engaged. secondly, we have to do a much better job in helping rebuild security apparatus that can be used. quick example. we had a terrible assault on our embassy in tunis. and i called the president of tunisia. i said you have got to send reinforcements rig
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9